ARIZONA: Court Orders Stemming From Lawsuits Costly To Arizona--------------------------------------------------------------Court orders that require the state to pay for costly errors or to fund programs and services gobbled up about $200 million this year, according to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, reported the Associated Press Newswires recently.

"The courts and electoral initiatives set the level of funding," saidFrancie Noyes, a spokeswoman for Governor Jane Hull. "That is a problem when revenues drop and there is no way to cut these predetermined amounts."

Some politicians are blaming activists for using the judicial system to legislate, while some activists blame politicians for forcing them to take their issues before a judge or to the ballot. All the while, the budget deficit grows, costs mount and state services rank low compared with other states.

There is a debate among policy-makers over how lawsuits fit into the budget crisis. "One reason we have all the deficits is because of all the lawsuits," said Rep. Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe. She is calling for a legal rainy day fund to cushion the impact of lawsuits on the budget.

"The courts seem favorable to class actions, which puts the general fund in more danger. So it is a big concern," Rep. Knaperek.

Her legislative colleague, State Senator Ruth Solomon, the Democratic nominee for state treasurer, believes lawmakers' inaction brought on most of the lawsuits.

"When the state had a great deal of money, instead of improving spending for the mentally ill or for public schools, we tended to cut the budget. People had no choice but to take to the courts to get theLegislature to act responsibly," said Senator Solomon.

BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE: Plaintiffs Welcome Case Move to Federal Court--------------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs' attorneys in the class action lawsuit against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. and Bridgestone Corporation over its Steeltex tire series expressed satisfaction with the petition filed last week by the international tire manufacturer to move the recently filed lawsuit from California Superior Court to the Eastern District of the United States District Court.

According to Joseph Lisoni of the Pasadena, CA law firm of Lisoni & Lisoni, which filed the class action lawsuit on August 12, 2002 in conjunction with The Law Offices of Steven E. Weinberger, the federal courts are the appropriate venue for this issue to be resolved and he is pleased that Bridgestone/Firestone has taken this action.

The class action lawsuit alleges that Bridgestone/Firestone's Steeltex R4S, R4SII and A/T tire series contain a lamination defect which can -- and has -- caused the entire tread of the tire to separate leading to the tire's destruction. Causes of action in the lawsuit charged the tire manufacturer with Fraudulent Concealment, Deceptive Practices in Violation of the CLRA, Violations of the Unfair Practices Act, Negligence and Strict Liability.

On September 12, 2002 Bridgestone/Firestone filed a "Notice of Removal" to remove the lawsuit from the California state court to the local federal district court. Among the grounds for this action, it cited the fact the plaintiffs were pleading federal claims, required interpretation of federal law, seeking to impose California statutory standards upon individuals outside of California and were applying laws that related to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Commenting on the removal of the lawsuit to federal court, Mr. Lisoni stated: "This legal action was filed to protect and represent the interests of Americans throughout the country who have purchased one of the more than 27.5 million Steeltex tires manufactured. We welcome the change to the federal jurisdiction as we do Bridgestone/Firestone's request for a jury trial. This issue should be decided by American citizens."

Mr. Lisoni emphasized that in the four weeks since the lawsuit was filed, he has received scores of reports from Steeltex tire owners nationwide of tire defects and damages as well as accidents and injuries resulting from the defects. "We are gathering evidence and documentation from them which we will be presenting to NHTSA, a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Transportation, on November 14 with our formal petition to reopen the investigation into the Steeltex tires." Part of the evidence, he emphasized, will be damaged tires, which will be transported to Washington, D.C.

The purpose of this lawsuit is not about money, Lisoni stressed, adding: "First and foremost, it is to motivate Bridgestone/Firestone to take responsibility for their defective product and do what is best for the safety of its customers -- immediately recall the entire Steeltex tire series."

CALDERA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. New York-----------------------------------------------------------------------Four class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering in the Unites States District Court for the Southern District of New York by parties alleging violations of the securities laws.

The complaints allege certain improprieties regarding the circumstances surrounding the underwriters' conduct during the IPO and the failure to disclose such conduct in the registration statement. The complaints have recently been amended and consolidated into a single complaint. Over 300 other issuers, and their underwriters and officers and directors, have been sued in similar cases pending in the same court.

The Company is not aware of any improper conduct by the Company, its officers and directors, or its underwriters, and the Company denies any liability relating thereto. The Company has notified its underwriters and insurance carriers of the existence of the claims and plans to vigorously defend the action.

Caldera International, which plans to change its name to The SCO Group, develops operating systems and network management software for PCs and servers. In addition to its OpenLinux and OpenServer operating systems, Caldera also sells its OpenUnix business software and Volution, a Web and directory-based network management application. Services such as consulting, custom development, technical support, and training account for about 15% of sales, a Hoover.com dossier says.

Chairman Ralph Yarro and director Raymond Noorda share control of 47% of the company through The Canopy Group (a venture capital firm) and MTI Technology.

Chargetek has received three reports of fires involving the CT-2000. The fires were contained to the charger with minor soot damage to nearby materials. No injuries have been reported.

The chargers were made in the USA and the words "Chargetek CT2000" are printed across the front of the charger's black housing. Indicator lights for charge mode, battery polarity and charge current are also located on the front. Wires for the AC power and three batteries extend from the bottom of the unit. Only models with a serial number in the range of 030260 to 030603 and/or a day code between "Jan 01 2001" and "June 30 2002" are included in the recall. The serial number is written on the top of the charger and the day code is stamped on the bottom.

Specialty product dealers sold these chargers nationwide from January 2001 to June 2002 for between $220 and $260.

Consumers should stop using and disconnect the AC power and the batteries from the chargers immediately. To arrange for a free replacement, consumers should contact Chargetek at 888-453-4135 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. For more information, consumers can visit the firm's web site at http://www.chargetek.com

CITIGROUP INC.: Will Pay $215 Million To Settle FTC's Allegations-----------------------------------------------------------------Citigroup Inc. has agreed to pay $215 million to settle the FederalTrade Commission's (FTC) allegations that a consumer lender it purchased in 2000, engaged in deceptive and abusive lending practices, The Wall Street Journal reported recently.

As part of the settlement, Citigroup agreed to pay $25 million to settle a national class-action lawsuit brought in California against its consumer lender, Associates First Capital Corp., a Dallas-based lender to "subprime" borrowers with spotty credit histories.

The $215 million paid to the FTC will provide as many as two millionAssociates borrowers with either cash refunds or reduced loan balances,FTC officials said.

"When we bought Associates, we found certain unacceptable practices that needed to be changed," Citigroup President Robert Willumstad said in a statement. "We are confident that today's settlement provides redress to those former Associates customers who were harmed."

The settlement, which covers Associates' practices from December 1995 to November 2000, ends a lawsuit filed by the Commission in federal court in Atlanta in 2001 against Associates.

Citigroup and its own consumer-finance unit, CitiFinancial, into whichAssociates was merged, also were named as defendants in the case.

The class-action and FTC settlements must be approved by judges in the respective cases.

Among the alleged abuses that occurred at Associates, according to theFTC's suit, were: deceptive marketing practices that induced clients to consolidate their debts into home loans with high interest rates, costs and fees; inducing borrowers to unknowingly purchase optional insurance on loans; and abusive debt-collecting practices.

Since it purchased Associates, Citigroup has taken a series of steps aimed at reforming some of Associates' practices. This week, for instance, the company said it would lower the maximum number of points charged on real-estate loans to three points from five points. FTC acknowledged the reforms Citigroup has made, though FTC Chairman Timothy Muris added that, "we will be watching Citigroup and many other lenders closely in the future."

Consumer advocates and community groups allege that Citigroup's reforms still do not mean that borrowers are adequately protected. Some added that the settlement, while the FTC's biggest related to consumers, still fails to properly compensate Associates' aggrieved borrowers.

CONNECTICUT: Monitor's Report Says Adoptions Up, More Services Needed---------------------------------------------------------------------Connecticut is making progress finding adoptive parents for foster children, but the state still needs to do more to eliminate an adoption backlog, according to a new report issued by the court-appointed monitor, who is watching over the Department of Children and Families'(DCF) foster care system, the Associated Press Newswires reported.

Children's Rights Inc., a New York-based advocacy group, filed a class-action lawsuit against DCF, in 1990, on behalf of the state's foster children. The lawsuit resulted in a federal consent decree on DCF's foster care system that has increased staffing and required other changes.

The court-appointed monitor watching over Connecticut's foster care system has determined that some children whose biological parents had their parental rights terminated are waiting too long for a permanent home. "They are obligated to move these children," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, president and executive director of Children's Rights.

DCF has not yet complied with a stipulation, stemming from the consent decree, requiring the Department to hire a private adoption agency to place a child if the state can't find a home within 90 days, said Ms.Lowry.

Children's Rights asked the court-appointed monitor, D. Ray Sirry, inJuly to issue the report on Connecticut's progress in placing children in permanent homes. The report is a follow-up to the agreement reached earlier this year between the DCF and child advocates. A federal judge in Bridgeport approved the agreement and mandated the corrective actions that should be taken by the Department to address a backlog of more than 600 foster children waiting for homes.

Mr. Sirry's report highlights three categories of children: those living with families who want to adopt them, but are waiting for DCF to finish paper work, those waiting to be placed in homes already identified, and those with no permanent home identified.

The monitor's report says that significant progress has been made with those waiting on paper work and those with identified homes. For example, more than two-thirds of the nearly 400 children in the first category were adopted this year. There are, however, 58 children whose parental rights were terminated who have not been placed in a timely manner. The monitor plans to release more information this month.

The Children's Rights' associate director, Ira Lustbader, is determined to bring about compliance with the consent decree's stipulation mandating hiring of an outside agency if the state cannot find a home for a child within 90 days of termination of the biological parents' rights. "There must be an all-out effort so they do not languish in foster care," said Mr. Lustbader.

On Wednesday, the DCF announced it had hired a consultant to help theDepartment improve its foster care system. Casey Family Services and its Casey Center for Effective Child Welfare Practices, already have organized a team of adoption experts to help evaluate the state's program. The length of time from the termination of parental rights over the child, to a permanent home will be among the issues examined.

DELIA*S CORPORATION: Litigation Drags On In S.D. New York Suits---------------------------------------------------------------In 1999, two separate purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against dELiA*s Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, and one former officer of a subsidiary. The original complaints were filed in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York by Allain Roy on June 1, 1999 and by Lorraine Padgett on June 3, 1999. The suits were consolidated into a single class action and an amended and consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2000.

The complaint in this lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of the purchasers of the company's securities during the period January 20, 1998 through September 10, 1998. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misstatements and by failing to disclose allegedly material information regarding trends in our business. The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants are liable for those violations under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper.

On April 14, 2000, dELiA*s Inc. and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion to dismiss was denied on March 29, 2001. By order dated December 10, 2001, the court certified the class.

"We filed our answer to the consolidated amended complaint in February 2002 and merit discovery was completed in May 2002. We intend to continue to vigorously defend against this action," the Company's latest Securities and Exchange Commission report said. "We believe that the claim is covered under our insurance policy and do not expect the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flow."

The Company sells to women, ages 10-24, trendy clothing, accessories, and home furnishings. About 58% of sales come from its Web site and catalog (which is distributed in Canada, Japan, and the US). The Company's namesake chain (some 45 stores along the East Coast and in the Midwest) generates another 38%. It has sold or converted most of its segments not related to the dELiA*s brand, such as gURL.com (Web site for teenage girls). The company spun off majority-owned subsidiary iTurf (Web sites for teens) in 1999 but repurchased it in late 2000; iTurf then took the dELiA*s name. The Kahn family, including CEO Stephen Kahn, owns nearly 35% of the firm.

DELIA*S CORPORATION: Issues One Million Class "A" Stocks to Settle Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------------Between August 17 and August 25, 2000, three purported class action complaints on behalf of stockholders of iTurf Inc., a partly owned subsidiary of dELiA*s Inc. at the time, were filed in Delaware Chancery Court against iTurf Inc., dELiA*s Inc. and each of iTurf's directors.

These actions include: Pack v. Kahn, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 18242NC, Semeraro v. Kahn, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 18258, and Engel v. Kahn, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 18260NC. All three complaints made virtually identical claims, alleging that dELiA*s Inc. and the members of iTurf's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to iTurf's public stockholders and that the merger exchange ratio was unfair to iTurf's public stockholders. The actions were consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on January 19, 2001.

On March 5, 2001, the Company answered that complaint, asserted affirmative defenses and separately moved to strike certain allegations. Also on March 5, 2001, the company moved to dismiss the complaint. On January 15, 2002, all parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and release, which became a final order in May 2002.

Pursuant to the settlement, the company issued one million shares of dELiA*s Class A common stock, of which 300,000 have been distributed and the remaining 700,000 shares will be distributed upon the completion of the claims administration process. The total $6.3 million value of the non-cash settlement was recorded as a fiscal 2001 charge.

EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT: Securities Suit Settlement Still Needs Final Nod--------------------------------------------------------------------The Company has been named as a defendant in a consolidated class action pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In a consolidated complaint, plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and others under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and New York common and statutory law arising out of the November 1995 initial public offering of 1 million shares of the Company's common stock.

According to the complaint, the underwriter of the offering, Sterling Foster & Co., Inc., which is also a defendant, manipulated secondary market trading in shares of the Company's common stock following the offering and covered certain short positions it created through such manipulation by purchasing shares of Company stock from persons who owned such stock prior to the offering pursuant to an arrangement with such persons that was not disclosed in the registration statement and prospectus distributed in connection with the offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

In November 1998, it was announced that Michael Lulkin, a director andChairman of the Board of Directors of the Company at the time of theCompany's initial public offering, had plead guilty to, among other things, conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The charges to which Mr. Lulkin plead were premised on allegations that Mr. Lulkin, Sterling Foster, and others had entered into an undisclosed agreement pursuant to which, upon conclusion of the Company's initial public offering, they would (a) cause Sterling Foster to release Mr. Lulkin and others who owned the Company stock prior to the offering from certain "lock up" agreements restricting them from selling such stock; and (b) cause Mr. Lulkin and such other persons to sell the Company stock to Sterling Foster at prearranged prices to enable Sterling Foster to use such stock to cover certain short positions it had created.

In August 1999, an agreement in principle was entered into providing for settlement of the consolidated class action against the Company, Mr. Lulkin and Steven Wasserman, who was also a member of the Company's Board of Directors at the time of the Company's initial public offering. Under the agreement in principle, all claims in the action against the Company, and against Mr. Lulkin and Mr. Wasserman insofar as they were members of the Company's Board of Directors, would be dismissed in exchange for a payment of $400,000, of which $100,000 would need to be paid by the Company and $300,000 would be paid by an insurance company under a directors and officers liability policy of insurance.

In June 2001, definitive settlement documents were executed. The settlement documents provide that the Company would pay the foregoing $100,000 by remitting to the class representatives $25,000 and a note in the amount of $75,000 payable in June 2003 with interest thereon at 7% per year.

The Company has remitted the funds and note described above to the class representatives to be held by them in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement and pending final court review of the settlement. The settlement is contingent upon, among other things, final approval by the court. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be concluded. In the year ended April 30, 2000, the Company recorded a reserve of $100,000 for this obligation.

Embryo Development Corporation makes medical devices used primarily in emergency medicine; the company is currently considering the sale of its assets and/or its patents, according to a Hoovers.com dossier.

ENRON CORPORATION: Bankruptcy Court Says Creditors May Sue Andersen-------------------------------------------------------------------Judge Arthur Gonzalez recently granted creditors of Enron Corp. the right to try to recover $10 million paid by Enron to former auditorArthur Andersen LLP days before the energy company's collapse,Associated Press Newswires has reported recently.

The official committee of unsecured creditors, which looks after the interests of those owed money by Enron, sought the authority to sue Andersen on the company's behalf. The Chapter 11 code entitles a company to challenge payments made within 90 days of a bankruptcy filing, to prevent any transactions that unfairly benefit one creditor at the expense of the others.

The creditors panel said in its court papers that all the available evidence indicates Andersen received "more than it would likely receive" if Enron had gone to liquidation under Chapter 7. In that case, the absolute priority rule applies, meaning that creditors with secured claims get the first call on the company's assets, followed by unsecured claimants.

Andersen, once the world's most respected accounting firm, recently shut down its auditing practice following a criminal conviction in June for its Enron bookkeeping work.

Andersen is also a target in a class-action lawsuit filed in a Houston federal court by Enron investors and former workers. Those plaintiffs, who said they suffered $29 billion in losses in Enron's fall, accuseAndersen of contributing to fraud at Enron by behavior that included hiding $1 billion in losses in off-the-books partnerships.

Meanwhile Enron's creditor committee also has been conducting its own investigation of Andersen's role in Enron's demise, which could lead to additional claims against the former auditor.

EV Global Motors has received five reports of the batteries overheating, three of which caught fire, though no injuries have been reported.

The recalled lithium ion batteries are used to power EV Global's folding Mini E-Bike. The battery, which is located in the battery compartment just in front of the seat, is supplied with most models of the Mini E-Bike. The words "mini e-bike" are printed on the side of the bicycle near the steering column. These bicycles are manufactured in Taiwan and the battery packs are assembled in the U.S.

Bicycle, automobile and Internet retailers nationwide sold the electric bikes from February 2001 through July 2002 for between $1,400 and $1,700.

Consumers should stop using these bicycles immediately and contact EV Global at 888-875-4545 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday for information on receiving a free replacement battery and charger. Consumers also can log on to the company's web site at http://www.EVGlobal.com The firm also will extend the warranty of the battery from 6 months to a year.

HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Sued By Investors, Investigated By SEC---------------------------------------------------------------HealthSouth Corp., which operates rehabilitation hospitals and clinics around the country, said recently it is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the wake of recent disclosures that its earnings would be sharply lower than expected and that its founder, Richard Scrushy, had sold half his stake in the firm a few weeks before the profit warning, Associated Press Newswires reported.

Investors have filed class-action lawsuits against Mr. Scrushy andHealthSouth executives that question the timing of the insider stock sale and whether or not information was kept from stockholders who lost some $2.7 billion in value in the initial plunge.

One issue in the shareholder lawsuits is whether Mr. Scrushy knew how much impact the clarification of a Medicare billing policy, issued May 17, would have on HealthSouth's earnings when he sold his shares.

On August 27, HealthSouth announced it was reducing its earnings estimates by $175 million based on the clarification of a Medicare billing policy, which was issued May 17. It was disclosed subsequently in an SEC filing that Mr. Scrushy sold about $25 million worth of stock -- half his stake in the company -- on July 31.

The earnings announcement sent the company's share price skidding 44 percent lower on August 27.

"We have been subjected to misleading and inaccurate press reports," Mr. Scrushy said during a conference call. He said the company has strong cash flow and high revenues, he dismissed pending class-action lawsuits from investors as frivolous. Mr. Scrushy said that a difficult environment prevails, one in which "reactions are so severe to even the smallest bit of news."

Mr. Scrushy said the company did not have any indication as to the impact the Medicare policy change would have on earnings until August15. Mr. Scrush said he sold back his shares on July 31 to pay off a loan from the company in an overall effort to reduce HealthSouth's debt load.

The Birmingham-based company did not specify which areas the SEC would be looking at, but told investors during a recent conference call that it would be cooperating fully. In its news release, HealthSouth officials said they contacted the SEC earlier on their own initiative and volunteered to provide "any information that might be helpful to it in evaluating recent events." The company said it was later notified that the SEC was conducting an investigation. SEC spokesman John Heine refused to confirm whether HealthSouth is being investigated.

HealthSouth has asked law firm Fulbright & Jaworski LLP to conduct a review of issues related to litigation and other matters. Their findings will be presented to the Board and shared with regulatory authorities.

HealthSouth is the nation's largest provider of outpatient surgery, diagnostic imaging and rehabilitation services with about 1,900 locations in all 50 states, Britain, Australia, Puerto Rico and Canada. The company had revenues of some $4.3 billion last year.

INTERVOICE INC.: Dallas Court Drops Securities Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------------InterVoice, Inc. (Nasdaq NM: INTV) issued a press release on last week after the market closed to announce that a federal judge in Dallas has granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims in a class action lawsuit brought by certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The plaintiffs in the case may, if they choose to, file an amended complaint that complies with applicable federal securities laws.

JAKARTA: NGOs, Student Groups To File Citizens' Suit To Annul Election----------------------------------------------------------------------Public opposition to election of Sutiyoso as governor continued recently with several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and student organizations planning to file a citizens lawsuit, demanding the annulment of the recent gubernatorial election, reports the JakartaPost.

The NGOs and students organizations that will file a citizens lawsuit are Jakarta Residents Reform, Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, IslamDefenders Front, Betawi Against Sutiyoso and Jakarta Universities' Student Executive Bodies.

"We will soon file the lawsuit at the district court. The defendants will be the council's chairman and the election committee," said Jakarta Resident Forum chairman Azas Tigor Nainggolan.

Mr. Tigor said the suit asked the court to annul the gubernatorial election, since it violated election principles and the practice of good governance. Mr. Tigor claimed that from the beginning of the election process, transparency, accountability and public participation as key principles of good governance, were ignored by the council.

Separately, chairman Sardi Effendy of the Jakarta Universities' StudentExecutive Bodies confirmed that his organization would join the NGOs in filing the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Sutiyoso's supporters, grouped under the Center of Jakarta Studies, visited the Ministry of Home Affairs recently and demanded the ministry install the elected governor. But ministry spokesman I Nyoman Sumaryadi said installment of Sutiyoso could be canceled if there is evidence of irregularities during the election.

LABONTE HONEY: Pulls Honey Products That Can Cause Aplastic Anaemia--------------------------------------------------------------------The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Labonte Honey Inc. are warning consumers not to consume Paradise brand Natural Honey and Labonte brand Natural Honey from Clover flowers as they may be contaminated with honey imported from China. Honey imported from China may contain chloramphenicol.

These products are affected by this alert:

(i) Paradise brand, Natural Honey, sold in a 500 g glass container with UPC 0 64597 00113 0 bearing code 012035, 022035, and 032035. The code is found on the bottle shoulder.

(ii) Paradise brand, Natural Honey, sold in a 500 g glass container with UPC 0 64597 00113 0 bearing code 012035, 022035, and 032035. The code is found on the bottle shoulder.

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Not Expecting Suit to be Concluded Before 2003------------------------------------------------------------------On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of Marvell Technology Group Ltd.'s initial public offering on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name the Company or any of its officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received excessive and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful tie-in agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to the Company's IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants the Company and two of its officers, one of whom is also a director.

Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint in which the Company was not named as a defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys' and experts' fees. These two actions relating to the Company's IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States.

To date, there have been no significant developments in the consolidated litigation. It is expected that a small number of cases will be designated as test cases for purposes of initial challenges to the pleadings, which are not expected to be briefed, argued and decided before early 2003.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it and its officers are without merit and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Based on currently available information, it does not believe that the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit naming the Company and its officers will have a material adverse impact on its business or financial condition.

John Banzhaf, a George Washington University law professor who pioneered lawsuits against tobacco firms, is acting as an adviser on the case.

He said children often are unable to resist the chain's playgrounds, Happy Meals and toy promotions often tied to the release of popular movies. "Children clearly are not capable of making health-related decisions," he said. McDonald's tries to attract children and has an obligation to them."

Attorney Samuel Hirsch filed the lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court in the Bronx.

This suit comes just weeks after Mr. Hirsch filed another lawsuit against McDonald's, Burger King, KFC and Wendy's, on behalf of a270-pound New York City maintenance worker, Caesar Barber, 56, who said he developed diabetes and suffered two heart attacks after eating the greasy fare from the fast-food restaurants four or five times a week for decades.

Professor Banzhaf said that while Mr. Barber's lawsuit is snaking its way through the court system, Mr. Hirsch has decided to focus more on the lawsuit involving children, since children cannot be expected to be personally responsible for their health.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of the two teenagers claims that McDonald's contributed to their poor health and obesity by enticing them to consume larger portions through the use of "value meal" advertisements without disclosing the health effects.

The two teenagers are asking that a jury decide how much they should be compensated for the harm they have suffered. They also want the court to order McDonald's to do more to publicize the dietary content of its products, including a program on the dangers of eating certain items.

The youths' ages have not been released. Mr. Hirsch's office says one is 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs 270 pounds, while the other is 5 feet 3 inches and weighs 200 pounds. Apparently the two have been eating at McDonald's several times a week for years.

Walt Riker, a spokesman for McDonald's said that, "McDonald's is a full-menu restaurant providing variety and choices." He said children are becoming overweight due to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle.

"The notion that there is no parental authority over these children is ridiculous," said Mike Burita, a spokesman for the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization representing restaurant operators and individuals who want to preserve consumer choice. "Do little kids steal their parents' car keys and drive themselves to McDonald's?"

NCS PEARSON: Students May Seek Punitive Damages In Suit v. Testing Firm-----------------------------------------------------------------------Students involved in a class-action lawsuit against a testing company will be allowed to ask for punitive damages, because the judge has reversed his earlier decision, reports the Associated Press Newswires.

Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Judge Allen Oleisky wrote in an order recently that he now will allow students whose tests were incorrectly scored in 2000, to seek punitive damages from the testing company.

Judge Oleisky's decision comes just three weeks before the class-action case is to go to trial. At issue is whether jurors could only award actual damages for things like tutoring, missed work, embarrassment and humiliation, or whether the jury could award additional damages simply to punish the testing company, NCS Pearson of Eden Prairie.

The judge said the students' lawyer had presented enough evidence to convince him to rethink his initial decision and allow the punitive damages.

"Although it appears that the mistake that led to the scoring error was simple, plaintiffs have demonstrated that the error was preceded by years of quality control problems at NCS," Judge Oleisky wrote.

NCS gained notoriety for a grading error handing 47,000 students incorrectly scored required exams, and about 8,000 students wrongly given failing grades.

Shawn Raiter, a St. Paul attorney representing the students, argued successfully that NCS had previous problems that were not addressed and that the company should be punished as a result.

The judge agreed, writing, "The class has presented numerous examples of NCS employees on the Minnesota project requesting additional staffing and resources and having those requests denied... It was in this culture, emphasizing profitability and cost-cutting, in which theMinnesota error occurred."

The Legislative Fiscal Committee recently voted 7 to 3 not to hear reports from smaller legislative committees that unanimously had recommended the state spend $3.3 million in federal money to hire 62 workers. The Fiscal Committee instead cited a need first to solve management problems with the Division of Children, Youth and Families.

The hiring recommendation was a major part of mediated discussions to settle a 1991 federal class-action lawsuit, which accused the state's human services system of violating the rights of abused and neglected children.

Governor Jeanne Shaheen disagreed with the Fiscal Committee, saying that the Fiscal Committee's decision not to approve was "penny wise and pound foolish." She added, "Instead of acting responsibly, the FiscalCommittee chose to open New Hampshire up to expensive litigation and a solution imposed by a federal court."

On Monday, a court panel said the state still has not lived up to the terms of its settlement. In its fourth and final evaluation of the division, the three-member panel said the state has made some improvements, but has failed to hire enough workers to watch over the state's increasing numbers of abused children.

"We engaged in a good-faith negotiation over many months to try to reach a settlement," said Ronald Lospennato, a lawyer for the Disability Rights Center in Concord, which represents lawyers and plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "We felt the state's desire to make a commitment to hire 62 case workers was a step in the right direction... I think the Fiscal Committee has essentially robbed them of that opportunity to avoid more drastic action."

Said Mr. Lospennato, a return to court "is a lot more likely."

The original federal class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of "EricL." and other abused and neglected children in New Hampshire. The federal court found the state failed to respond promptly to reports of child abuse, and children in foster care received spotty mental health and dental care. The division also lacked long-range plans for the children it removed from their homes, and families in crisis were not receiving adequate help to keep children and their parents together, the court found. The court gave the state five years to fix those and other problems.

NORTHERN TOOL: Voluntarily Recalls 3,400 Electric Air Compressors-----------------------------------------------------------------In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Northern Tool & Equipment, of Burnsville, Minn., is voluntarily recalling about 3,400 electric air compressors. The capacitors on these compressors can overheat, catch fire and ignite the plastic cover above the capacitor.

Northern Tool has received six reports of capacitors overheating or igniting. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled air compressors are Model 191000 and Model 192000. The model number on both units can be found on the shipping carton and invoice. The Model 191000 is a 2.5 HP air compressor with a red, six- gallon capacity tank. A blue "Northern Industrial Tools" label is on the side of the tank. The compressor motor sits on top the tank and is covered with a black plastic shell. The Model 192000 is a 2.5 HP unit with twin two-gallon tanks. The twin tanks are red and stacked vertically on one side of the unit. A blue "Northern Industrial Tools" label is on the side of the top tank. The motor is located at the base of the unit, adjacent to the twin tanks, and is partially covered with a black plastic shell.

Northern Tool sold the recalled Model 191000 and 192000 air compressors through direct mail and Northern Tool specialty stores nationwide from January 2002 to May 2002 for between $110 and $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Model 191000 and 192000 air compressors and should contact Northern Tool for a refund. For more information, consumers can contact Northern Tool at 800-222-5381 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's web site at http://www.northerntool.com

This recall includes only those Model 191000 and 192000 compressors sold between January and May 2002.

ORACLE CORPORATION: Court Nixes Another Amended Securities Fraud Suit---------------------------------------------------------------------Oracle Corporation informed the Securities and Exchange Commission recently that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California had again thrown out a second amended securities suit filed against it.

The court threw out the complaint on September 6, 2002, six months after it similarly dismissed an amended suit in March, said the company in its latest SEC report.

This suit stems from several stockholder class actions filed on and after March 9, 2001, naming the company and its Chief Executive Officer. On June 20, 2001, the Court consolidated the class actions into a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff and class counsel. A consolidated amended complaint adding the Chief Financial Officer and an Executive Vice President as defendants was filed on August 3, 2001. The consolidated amended complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock during the period from December 15, 2000 through March 1, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's actual and expected financial performance and the performance of certain of its applications products, while certain individual defendants were selling Oracle stock, in violation of Federal securities laws. Plaintiffs further alleged that some of the individual defendants sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public information.

"On March 22, 2002, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated action without prejudice and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2002. On September 6, 2002, the Court granted another motion to dismiss, again without prejudice," said the SEC document. "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action and, should plaintiffs file a second amended consolidated complaint within 30 days, as permitted by the Court's order, we will continue to vigorously defend it."

No class has been certified, the company said.

Oracle is a leading provider of systems software, including database management, application development, and application server software. Its Oracle9i database management software is used by companies to store and access data across numerous platforms. The company continues to expand past its legacy database products into online services and business applications, adding business intelligence and collaboration software to its offerings, which also include supply chain and human resource management applications. Consulting and support services account for over 60% of sales. Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison owns some 25% of Oracle.

ORACLE CORPORATION: Derivative Lawsuits in Delaware, California Stayed----------------------------------------------------------------------Oracle Corporation says the three derivative suits it faces in California and Delaware are currently stayed, pending the report of a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) created by the Board of Directors to investigate the allegations in the suit.

In its latest SEC report, the company said it is now waiting for the court's ruling on a motion to dismiss by plaintiffs. The court had earlier denied this motion and stayed the action, pending the report by the SLC on the status of its investigation. The committee submitted its report on September 6, 2002.

This suit is currently pending in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and for New Castle County. The originally derivative suits were filed on or after March 12, 2001. An amended suit consolidated these actions and was later lodged on October 9, 2001.

In California, the lawsuits in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo and County of Santa Clara and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California are in various stages of litigation.

In the San Mateo derivative action, the court denied the company's and the individual defendants' respective motions to stay the action pending the SLC's investigation, and required that the SLC intervene in the action should it desire to move to stay it. The SLC filed its complaint in intervention on July 12, 2002 and was granted leave to intervene on August 2, 2002. The plaintiffs' demurrer to the SLC's complaint in intervention was denied on September 4, 2002. The SLC also renewed its motion to stay on August 2, 2002, and a hearing on that matter was scheduled to proceed on September 4-6, 2002. That hearing was further postponed until September 27, 2002. While the stay motion is pending, the Court ordered certain document discovery to proceed.

As for the federal derivative suit, the company has entered into a stipulated stay of the action while the SLC conducts its investigation, Oracle said in its SEC report.

The derivative suits were brought by stockholders, purportedly on the company's behalf, against some of the current and former directors. The derivative plaintiffs allege that these directors breached their fiduciary duties by making or causing to be made alleged misstatements about the company's revenue, growth and the performance of certain applications products while certain officers and directors sold Oracle stock based on material, non-public information, and by allowing the company to be sued in the stockholder class actions. The derivative plaintiffs seek compensatory and other damages, disgorgement of profits and other relief.

PENNSYLVANIA: Bucks County Prison Inmates Sue Over Poor Conditions------------------------------------------------------------------Ten current and former inmates at the Bucks County Prison recently filed a federal lawsuit against the county commissioners and other officials, alleging that the facility is unsanitary and allows communicable diseases to fester, the Allentown Morning Call has reported.

The inmates seek more than $4 million in damages. Anita F. Alberts, an attorney for the inmates, said additional papers will soon be filed in federal court that will seek to designate the case a class-action lawsuit.

If the federal judge provides the suit with class-action status, Ms. Alberts said she would seek a court order forcing the county government to upgrade sanitary conditions.

Ms. Alberts and attorney Martha Sperling filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. The two Doylestown lawyers already represent several inmates in another case alleging women do not receive adequate medical treatment at the prison. Commissioners have been in settlement negotiations for months on that case, and have agreed to establish a board that oversees the jail and construct a separate medical wing for women inmates at the maximum security institution inDoylestown Township.

Ms. Alberts said she has spent months sitting at the negotiating table, telling the commissioners, other corrections officials, as well as county Health Department officials, that unsanitary conditions exist at the jail. According to Ms. Alberts the commissioners did nothing. "It was absolute indifference. That is the standard for a constitutional violation and that is what we have here," said Ms. Alberts.

The lawsuit alleged that unsanitary conditions at the county prison violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protect against cruel and unusual punishment.

Ms. Alberts and Ms. Sperling are aware of the hurdles involved in reaching the officials' awareness of the seriousness of the sanitary conditions in the jail: They first charged last month that cases ofmethicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, were going untreated at the jail, which county officials denied. But this week a state Health Department report said at least 24 inmates have tested positive for MRSA, an infection manifesting boils and lesions or more serious blood infections; and also pneumonia. Inmates also have tested positive for tuberculosis.

The 10 inmates seek payments of $150,000 each on multiple counts outlined in the lawsuit. The total damage sought is $4.2 million.

RITE AID: Overcharged Accident Victims May Get Prescription Refunds-------------------------------------------------------------------Rite Aid and CVS would have to give reimbursements or discounts to traffic accident victims who say they were overcharged for medications under a $2 million settlement tentatively approved by a judge recently,Associated Press Newswires reported.

Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Judge Edgar B. Bayley can give final approval to the settlement at a hearing on November 27. The accord could affect thousands of crash victims throughout the state who have had prescriptions filled at Rite Aid Corp. and CVS Inc. pharmacies since 1995.

Three class-action lawsuits were filed in 1999, by five local accident victims. They said the pharmacies violated a 1990 state law that requires them to give traffic accident victims 20 percent off the prices of medications for their injuries.

The settlement says the companies must create a $550,000 fund to reimburse accident victims who paid the full cost of prescriptions.They also will have to set up a $750,000 fund to give discount coupons to victims whose insurers paid full cost.

Also, under the agreement, the companies will pay $300,000 to administer distribution of claims money and coupons. And they will pay $400,000 to the three law firms that represented the victims who filed the original lawsuits.

A condition of the settlement is that none of the parties involved may talk about it publicly.

CVS and Rite Aid say in the settlement that their agreement to it is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

SLOAN'S SUPERMARKETS: Class Suit Set for Trial January 6 Next Year------------------------------------------------------------------RMED International, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: TUSH) was notified by the Federal Court that January 6, 2003 is the trial date set for RMED's class action suit against defendants Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc. (now Gristede's Food, Inc. (Amex: GRI)) and John A. Catsimatidis.

The case number is 94CV5587 in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. The class seeks to recover damages based on the defendants' failure to disclose, in its public filings and otherwise, the existence of an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission regarding the concentration of supermarkets by entities owned or controlled by the defendants.

SOYAWORLD INC.: Recalls Soya Drink Containing Life-Threatening Protein----------------------------------------------------------------------The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and SoyaWorld Inc. are warning consumers not to consume So Good brand Fortified Soy Beverage. The affected product may contain milk protein, which is not declared on the label. This alert is of concern to those individuals who have allergies to milk protein.

The affected product, So Good brand Fortified Soy Beverage, is sold in 1.89 L container, bearing the Best Before date OC 19 and the UPC 6 26027 26550 7.

SoyaWorld Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia, is voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace. The affected product is distributed only in Ontario.

The consumption of this product may cause a serious or life threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk protein. There have been two reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product.

The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

For more information, consumers and industry can call one of these numbers:

SWITCHBOARD INCORPORATED: Building Vigorous Defense in S.D. NY Suit-------------------------------------------------------------------On November 21, 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants Switchboard, the managing underwriters of Switchboard's initial public offering, Douglas J. Greenlaw, Dean Polnerow, and John P. Jewett.

Mr. Greenlaw and Mr. Polnerow are officers of Switchboard, and Mr. Jewett is a former officer of Switchboard. The complaint is captioned Kristina Ly v. Switchboard Incorporated, et al., 01-CV-10595.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement and final prospectus relating to Switchboard's initial public offering contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions related, in part, to excessive and undisclosed commissions allegedly received by the underwriters from investors to whom the underwriters allegedly allocated shares of the initial public offering.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. This class action lawsuit is similar to over 300 others filed recently against companies that went public between 1998 and 2000. Switchboard believes the claims against it and its officers, former officers and directors are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

Switchboard offers an online directory for phone numbers, addresses, and e-mail addresses of individuals and businesses in the US. Its Switchboard.com site, which is visited more than 80 million times each month by more than 3 million users, also features a search engine, a product directory, and maps (through its MapsOnUs service). The company also provides customized Web-hosted directory platforms to online portals (AOL Time Warner accounts for about 25% of sales) and other clients. Switchboard has ended an advertising partnership with CBS, and CBS parent Viacom has relinquished its minority stake in the company. Networking software company ePresence owns 52% of Switchboard.

TOBACCO LITIGATION: New York District Court Certifies Nationwide Class----------------------------------------------------------------------Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel in the nationwide smokers class action entitled In Re Simon II Litigation, No. 00-CV-5332, filed in the Eastern District of New York, commented Friday on U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein's order last week that granted certification of a class of persons seeking punitive damages against the tobacco industry who at the time of their deaths smoked the defendants' cigarettes or have been diagnosed by a physician with a qualifying smoking-related disease on or after April 9, 1993.

"For the first time, a judicial forum has been created for holding the tobacco industry accountable on a comprehensive basis for the harm and misery its conduct and products have caused American smokers and their families. This class action is the best and only way to fulfill the policy of punitive damages in American law: to punish the tobacco industry in an amount proportional to the wrong," said Ms. Cabraser, a partner with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. "Judge Weinstein's order builds upon the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent opinions on punitive damages that require the punishment to be proportional to the harm."

The Court's Order

On September 19, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein granted certification of a class of persons who at the time of their deaths smoked the defendants' cigarettes or have been diagnosed by a physician with a qualifying smoking-related disease on or after April 9, 1993.

All persons residing in the United States, or who were residents of the United States at the time of their deaths, who smoke or smoked Defendants' cigarettes, and who were first diagnosed by a physician with one or more of the following diseases from April 9, 1993 through the date notice to the class is ordered disseminated: lung cancer; laryngeal cancer; lip cancer; tongue cancer; mouth cancer; esophageal cancer; kidney cancer; pancreatic cancer; bladder cancer; ischemic heart disease; cerebrovascular heart disease; aortic aneurysm; peripheral vascular disease; emphysema; chronic bronchitis; or, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (also called chronic air flow obstruction).

The following persons are excluded from the class:

(1) Persons who have obtained judgments or settlements against any or all Defendants;

(2) Persons against whom any or all of the Defendants have obtained judgments;

(3) Persons who are members of the certified class in Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 94-08273 CA-22 (Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial District, Dade County, Florida);

(4) Persons who should have first reasonably realized that they had the disease prior to April 9, 1993; and

(5) Persons whose diagnosis or reasonable basis for knowledge predates their use of tobacco.

Among the allegations raised in the Simon case are that over a course of decades the cigarette companies manufactured and sold cigarettes in a dangerous condition because the cigarettes were not accompanied with adequate warnings and the cigarette companies fraudulently denied and concealed from smokers the significant health risks, including nicotine addiction, of smoking.

It is expected that the defendants will file an appeal from the court's order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

UNITED STATES: Ex-Braceros Begin Trek To Seek Wages Earned Decades Ago-----------------------------------------------------------------------A small group of aging men began a journey recently to find ways of demanding repayment of the millions of dollars in withheld wages for work they did in the United States decades ago, the Associated PressNewswires has reported.

In a symbolic gesture, the group departed from the same rail station many of them used 60 years ago to travel north, the now-shutteredBuenavista rail station, where they posted a wreath and observed a moment of silence for comrades who have since died. The group plans to gather on September 29 in Stockton, California, the arrival point for many of the first Braceros.

The remaining men were among some 2.5 million Mexicans who toiled in the United States between 1942 and 1964 under a guest worker program known as the "Bracero" program. Bracero means 'arm', and the Mexicans lent their arms to work in farms and other critical industries in the United States as American men marched off to World War II.

The Alianza Braceroproa, which represents thousands of the men and their heirs, is campaigning to find restitution for the millions of dollars in savings and pension funds that were withheld from the men's pay and may have disappeared at a government bank in Mexico.

Alianza leader Ventura Gutierrez said the amount could range from $500 million to $1 billion, apparently based partly on inflation.

Late last month, a federal judge in San Francisco, Judge Charles Breyer, dismissed most of a class-action lawsuit filed on their behalf, saying that while the court was sympathetic to the plaintiffs' plight and recognized that many of the braceros never received the monies deducted from their wages, they were not entitled to relief in a U.S. court of law. The defendants in the lawsuit were the United States and Mexican governments and the Wells Fargo Bank, which was in charge of transferring the funds to Mexico.

Mr. Gutierrez said the group still supports a boycott of the Wells Fargo Bank in order to compel it to release documents that could help determine what happened to the funds in Mexico. Wells Fargo officials have said they have few documents, but said they believe the bank complied with its obligations under the arrangements made years ago.

A commission of Mexico's Congress also is investigating what happened to the money. Government officials first promised to help the Braceros more than three years ago.

In July, August and September 2000, several purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and Scott Stouffer, chairman of board and former chief executive officer. These complaints have since been combined into a single consolidated amended complaint. The complaint alleges that between February 7, 2000 and August 23, 2000, the defendants made false and misleading statements that had the effect of inflating the market price of the Company's stock, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 20, 2002, United States District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow entered an order in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissing the consolidated securities class action complaint filed against the Company and Mr. Stouffer. On September 17, 2002, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

* Courts Divided on Enforcement of Contracts Forged Online ----------------------------------------------------------E-commerce success depends not only on government policies such as jurisdiction and taxation, but also on an even more critical underlying issue: Will the courts enforce the electronic contracts consummated on-line, typically by consumers clicking an "I agree" icon on a Web page? On that question, courts appear split, according to a report by The Globe and Mail considering this subject.

Three recent cases illustrate the differing perspectives. The first case involves an attempted class-action lawsuit brought by a disgruntled Verizon high-speed Internet subscriber in a District of Columbia court. The subscriber was a D.C. resident who, after experiencing delays in service and slower speeds than advertised, decided to sue.

Verizon responded to the suit by asking the D.C. court to dismiss the case on the grounds that its service contract, which all subscribers entered into electronically, required that disputes be resolved in the State of Virginia. The selection of Virginia was no accident; it was, on the part of Verizon, carefully selected -- Virginia being one of only two states in the United States that lacks a class-action procedure similar to that found in D.C.

The D.C. Court of Appeal sided with Verizon and dismissed the case. It ruled that all the Verizon Internet subscribers received adequate notice about the terms of the agreement, and that, therefore, it was not unreasonable to enforce the clause requiring enforcement of the contract in the venue of Virginia.

The D.C. case is strikingly similar to an Ontario case from earlier this year, involving another attempted class-action lawsuit, this time against Rogers Cable by a group of equally unhappy high-speed Internet subscribers. The Rogers contract included a clause that mandated that all disputes be decided by arbitration rather than by the courts.

An Ontario court upheld that contract, even though the clause was not in the original subscriber agreement, but was added in an amendment posted on the company's Web site. The court ruled that posting contract amendments on-line could constitute sufficient notice and acceptance of the amendment by the subscriber.

In stark contrast to the D.C. and Ontario decisions, a federal court inCalifornia recently reached the opposite conclusion when it examined the electronic agreement used by PayPal, an on-line payment service. The case involved yet another attempted class action, this time by angry PayPal users, who argued that the company engaged in a series of unfair consumer practices. Much like Rogers, PayPal sought to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that its agreement contained a clause requiring that all disputes be resolved by arbitration in California.

Unlike the Verizon and Rogers cases, however, the court in this case refused to enforce the terms of the contract setting forth how disputes between the parties would be handled, and refused to enforce the arbitration clause.

The court first expressed reservations about whether there was sufficient evidence that users had agreed to the PayPal electronic contract. And, then, the court left little doubt that it viewed the arbitration clause as completely one-sided, with all the power resting with the company.

Moreover, the court was very troubled that the clause required that the arbitration occur in California, noting that the average PayPal transaction value was only $55 (U.S.), effectively eliminating dispute resolution for most consumers who live outside the state and who would be unwilling to go to the expense of traveling to California.

The PayPal case, along with two other U.S. cases involving disputes with America Online, stress the need for consumer protection to extend on-line in the same manner as it does off-line, even at the expense of contractual certainty. Staying out of the courtroom seems, on balance, to be the better method of handling on-line contract enforcement so long as adequate consumer protections are left intact.

The board is looking at becoming the lead plaintiff in lawsuits against such companies, said Joseph M. Coale, spokesman for the State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland. Up to now, the pension board has played a passive role in the current scandals, joining lawsuits filed by others.

For example, the pension board joined others in filing a class-action lawsuit against Texas-based Enron, in hopes of recovering the nearly $50 million it lost as the company's stock plummeted and the company filed for bankruptcy.

"We feel that the board's policy is evolving from one of being passive to being more assertive and more aggressive," Mr. Coale said. For example, board members have discussed taking a more active role against companies such as Enron, but, as yet, have taken no formal votes on a new policy. Nonetheless, the tougher stance has significant support,Mr. Coale said of the idea.

Mr. Coale said the board hopes to increase any judgments it can win in court by becoming lead plaintiff, and added that the state owes it to the pension system's participants to recapture whatever losses it can.

Some industry experts said they expect to see many retirement systems take more combative action to protect their investments. Their methods might include filing lawsuits, increasing lobbying efforts and strengthening accountability standards, said Edwin Boyer, a principal with Asset Strategy consultants.

"Basically, as all institutions organizing pension funds step up their level of oversight, I think they are going to be more in concert with each other," Mr. Boyer said.

New Securities Fraud Cases

AT&T CORPORATION: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY-------------------------------------------------------------------The Emerson Firm, a securities class action trial law firm, announced Friday last week that a class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of AT&T Corp. common stock (NYSE:T) during the period between November 29, 1999 and August 22, 2002, inclusive, or of the AT&T Wireless tracking stock (NYSE:AWE) from its inception until August 22, 2002, inclusive, against Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., analyst Jack Grubman, Salomon's parent company Citigroup, Inc. and Citigroup CEO Sanford Weill.

The complaint charges defendants with recommending the purchase of AT&T common stock without regard to the factual basis and without disclosing its conflicts of interest. When issuing the analyst report, the Defendants Salomon and Grubman failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest, including the following: that, in an explicit or implicit quid pro quo, Salomon was granted a lucrative role in the April 2000 issuance of an AT&T Wireless tracking stock, after Grubman, at AT&T's request, passed to Grubman by Weill, raised his recommendation of AT&T in November 1999 from "neutral" to "buy."

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Kaplan Fox Commences Suit in N.D. Illinois-------------------------------------------------------------------Kaplan Fox (kaplanfox.com) has filed a class action suit against Household International, Inc. (NYSE:HI), certain of its officers and directors, and Arthur Andersen, LLP, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This suit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Household International securities between October 23, 1997 and August 14, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and future prospects.

The Class Period begins on October 23, 1997 the date on which Household International announced its third-quarter 1997 results. The Class Period ends on August 14, 2002, the day Household International announced it would restate its prior eight years financials, because it had overstated its net income by $386 million during that period. Specifically, Household International said it would revise the way it had accounted for its MasterCard/Visa co-branding and affinity card relationships, as well as a credit-card marketing agreement with a third party.

As a result of the Defendants' false and misleading statements, Household International securities traded at artificially high levels during the Class Period.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.